Pages: 1 2

 

2006-01-18 00:22:46
BEE_Grim_Reaper
Member
+15|7128|Germany

TehSeraphim wrote:

IRL the M1A2 > T90, but for bf2 ea made them pretty much even.  I play kark a lot and armor whore with the m1 often, and I don't have trouble taking out the t90...although I do like the t90 better...personal preference.
I wouldn't say so plain tha the M1A2 is better then the T90 throughout the board. As a matter of fact, the main armament of the T90 is stronger than that of the M1A2 plus the T90 is able to shoot missiles projectiles from its main gun. Concerning the armor: the T-90 has also composite armor not unlike that of the M1. The T-90 is much lighter though with actually ensures better mobility and maneuverability. Granted... the maximum road speed of the M1A2 is higher, but the offroad max speed of the T-90 is higher due to less weight.
Another thing to mention is, that the engine of the T-90 is much more robust than that of the M1A2. It is not so prone to failures because of dust for example (turbine engines are so fragile). Also: you can run a T-90 on salad oil if you like as that tank diesel engine can burn pretty much everything that is a liquid oil based liquid. The M1's fuel requirements are somewhat higher.
2006-01-18 00:36:02
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7195|Noizyland

If you drive a USMC tank in Kubra Dam from the US base to the Mec base, back to the US base, it'll probably end up flaming. I don't knonw why the damn thing just keeps getting damage from the tiniest little pebbles. I think the cannon on the USMC tank is more powerful than the MEC/Chinese one though.

Last edited by Tyferra (2006-01-18 00:38:03)

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2006-01-18 01:08:50
dracul
Member
+2|7228
The reason this m1 is so much better than the t90 IRL, is

A: even though its gun is smaller, the advanced computerized sights along with the precision engineered gun-stablizers means the m1 can make precise shots at ranges the t90 has to come to a full stop to make.

Except the m1 can make them while moving at full speed over semi-broken terrain.

IRL tank battles are ALL about maneuvers.


Western equipment tended to be near parity with russian engineering, sometimes russian being slightly better, sometimes nato. Then the sophisticated electronic assist suites would put them over the top.

In some circumstances that equaled out to a pretty decisive advantage.
Close in urban slug-fests were NOT those circumstances.
2006-01-18 01:11:33
Snakestyles
Member
+17|7158|South Africa
Dont tanks use Canister shot against infantry?.
2006-01-18 02:58:14
dracul
Member
+2|7228
Dont tanks use Canister shot against infantry?
I may be mistaken, but I believe thats actually banned by the geneva convention.
2006-01-18 03:20:33
timboon
Member
+2|7137
wot is canister shot? i hav a slight idea but could u tell me in greater detail?
2006-01-18 03:20:43
Boyes
Member
+0|7096

dracul wrote:

Dont tanks use Canister shot against infantry?
I may be mistaken, but I believe thats actually banned by the geneva convention.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20051211.aspx
2006-01-18 08:42:03
=NAA=TheTaxidermist
Member
+6|7155|In a van down by the river
You know what I hate about some tankers?  When they are fighting you they drive as close as they can to you.  So when you blow them up, it blows you up to (without the aid of C4).  This is the stupidest tactic ever.  When you use this tactic you are pretty much saying, "Hey I suck in a tank".  Some guy kept tryin to do it to me yesterday but driving in reverse kept his ass in check.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard